Propagandists Use of Badian, Borza and Danforth

[Xiotis]

The FYROMian propagandist websites are seemingly covered with references to Ernst Badian, Eugene Borza and the anthropologist Loring Danforth.

Of course they only selectively cite and quote excerpts from these sources that adhere to their nationalist agenda.

Upon closer examination of the views asserted by these authors it is very appearent that they do not support the far fetched looney nationalist theories espoused by our FYROMian friends.

Lets start with L. Danforth. When Danforth's "The Macedonian Conflict" was released in 1995 the propagandists from the 'Macedonian World Congress' were advertising it all over usenet. Not only that, Danforth himself was actively advertising the book in one of the FYROMian mailing lists. I do not agree with many of Danforth's views and I do think he is biased towards the slavs from FYROM since much of his material in the subsequent chapters is derived from first hand accounts from the slavs themselves. Even so, many of his views completely contradict the theories espoused by the nationalists that selectively quote him all over their websites and in different forums.

Examples:

1. Danforth discussing the relationship between the slavs of FYROM and the ancient Macedonians:

The History of the construction of a Macedonian national identity DOES NOT BEGIN WITH ALEXANDER THE GREAT IN THE FOURTH CENTURY BC, OR WITH SAINTS CYRIL AND METHODIUS IN THE NINTH CENTURY AD, AS Macedonian nationalist historians often claim - L. Danforth page 56

2. Danforth's opinion on the Greek character of the Macedonians. He takes the Borza/Badian view that it was during the Hellenistic era that the ancient Macedonians became regarded as Greeks:

"It was only after the death of Alexander the Great with the increasing Hellenization of Macedonian culture and the emergence of Rome as a common enemy in the west that THE MACEDONIANS CAME TO BE REGARDED AS 'NORTHERN GREEKS'(Borza 1990:96, Badian 1982:33-35) THIS IS PRECISELY THE PERIOD DURING WHICH ANCIENT AUTHORS SUCH AS POLYBIUS AND STRABO DID REFER TO THE ANCIENT MACEDONIANS AS GREEKS" Danforth page 169

3. Danforth's opinions on the national consciousness of the slavs early last century. These views surely do not support the notion of a continuous 'Macedonian' ethnicity since the days of Alexander!!!:

Finally, Krste Misirkov, who had clearly developed a strong sense of his won personal national identity as a Macedonian and who outspokenly and unambiguously called for Macedonian inguistic and national separtism, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A MACEDONIAN NATIONAL IDENTITY WAS A RELATIVELY RECENT HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT. -pg 63

To support the above Danforth quotes Misirkov:

"Our fathers, grandfathers, and great-grandfathers have ALWAYS been called BULGARIANS.. in the past WE have even called ourselves BULGARIANS"

The political and military leaders of the Slavs of Macedonia at the turn of the century seem not to have heard Misirkov's call for a separate Macedonian national identity; they continued to identify themselves in a national sense as Bulgarians rather than Macedonians. -pg 64

Whether a Macedonian nation existed at the time or not, it is PERFECTLY CLEAR that the Communist party of Yugoslavia had important political reasons for declaring that one did exist and for FOSTERING ITS DEVELOPMENT through a CONCERTED PROCESS OF NATION BUILDING, EMPLOYING ALL THE MEANS AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE YUGOSLAV STATE. pg -66

The decision of the Yugoslav Communists to grant Macedonia a significant degree of autonomy in the CULTURAL sphere was a great impetus to the DEVELOPMENT of the Macedonian national identity-pg 66

So much for a continuous 'Macedonian' ethnicity since the days of Alexander! Surely Danforth, one of their favorite sources, does not agree with this position! So why do they selectively quote him?

Now, lets discuss Ernst Badian. Badian was a favorite of propagandists since I joined the internet in the early 90s. Badian asserts that there were political and cultural differences between the Macedonians and the Greeks during the fourth century BC that led many Greeks not to regard the ancient Macedonians as a Greek tribe. Of course our propagandist friends love to quote Badian's opinions of the political conditions of 4th century BC Greece! They completely disregard his statement that the ancient Macedonians came to be regarded as Northern Greeks at some point during the Hellenistic era:

We have now become accustomed to regarding MACEDONIANS as northern GREEKS' and, in extreme cases, to hearing Alexander's conquests described as in essence GREEK CONQUESTS. The former CERTAINLY became TRUE, in Greek consciousness in the course of the Hellenistic age;the latter may be argued to be true`ex post facto'." But it is an important question whether these assertions should properly be made in a fourth century B.C context

What does this do to the slav theory that they are a continuous race derived from the Macedonians? Badian, one of their favorite historical sources, TELLS THEM THAT THE MACEDONIANS BECAME REGARDED AS GREEKS!

The favorite historical reference of the propagandist slavs is Eugene Borza. Somehow they believe that if they can show the ancient Macedonians were not a Greek tribe then they must be related to the ancient Macedonians by default. Talk about poor logic and national myth building at its finest! To bolster this theory they love to quote Borza.

This is Borza's view of the population in the modern region (where are the 'Macedonians'?):

The region abounded in enclaves and admixtures of Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs, Jews, Turks, Albanians, Vlachs, other minority groups, those of mixed ancestry, and those of uncertain or even capricious nationality...[E.Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p.9]

This is Borza telling the slavs that no nation today (this includes FYROM) is related to ancient Macedonia. The Macedonians were:

A UNIQUE PEOPLE IN ANTIQUITY WHO GRADUALLY BECAME **HELLENIZED**, AND WHO ARE UNRELATED TO ANY MODERN PEOPLE- E. Borza Before Alexander: constructing Macedinia pg 39.

Do these propagandists have no shame constantly citing Borza yet Borza tells them that the Macedonians eventually became Hellenized!!

Furthermore there is no doubt that the Macedonian royal house claimed Greek descent. Why do the propagandists completely overlook these views held by their favorite scholar! Can any one of the propagandists prove that the ancient Macedonian royal house did not believe their OWN claims of GREEK descent?

Borza:

There is *NO DOUBT* that this tradition of a superimposed Greek house was *WIDELY BELIEVED* by the Macedonians.." pg 80

There was a PERSISTENT, WELL ATTESTED tradition in antiquity that told of a group of Greeks from Argos-descendants of Temenus, kinsman of Heracles-who came to Macedonia and established their rule over the
Makedones, unifying them and providing a royal house" pg 80

There is NO reason to deny the Macedonians' own traditions about their early kings and the migration of the Macedones.[..] The basic story as provided by Herodotus and Thucydides, minus the interpoloation of the Temenid connections, UNDOUBTEDLY relfects the Macedonians' own traditions about their early history" pg 84

As the quotes above show the favorite historians and authors of the nationalist slavs from FYROM DO NOT support their absurd theories! Please keep these quotes in mind next time one of them presents one of these authors in support of their looney claims.

Also keep in mind that these authors represent some of the least favorable positions when it comes to the Hellenic ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, that is why they love to quote them. Even the least favorable position states the Macedonians were fully Hellenized!

[The Blood of Dorus]

Indeed this true, they deliberately ignore Borza's conclusions and some of his observations on their ethnicity. For example, Borza states:

"In fact, I do not know who the ancient Macedonians were and what language they spoke."

"Before Alexander: Constructing Early Macedonia", Eugene Borza, July 1999, pg 39
http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/for...macedonia.html

And then there are these statements from Borza:

During medieval and modem times, Macedonia was known as a Balkan region inhabited by ethnic Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs, Serbs, Bulgarians, Jews, and Turks.

The emergence of a Macedonian nationality is an offshoot of the joint Macedonian and Bulgarian struggle against Hellenization. With the establishment of an independent Bulgarian state and church in the 1870s, however, the conflict took a new turn. Until this time the distinction between "Macedonian" and "Bulgarian" hardly existed beyond the dialect differences between standard "eastern" Bulgarian and that spoken in the region of Macedonia.

Modern Slavs, both Bulgarians and Macedonians, cannot establish a link with antiquity, as the Slavs entered the Balkans centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom. Only the most radical Slavic factions—mostly émi-grés in the United States, Canada, and Australia—even attempt to establish a connection to antiquity.

...the Macedonians are a newly emergent people in search of a past to help legitimize their precarious present as they attempt to establish their singular identity in a Slavic world dominated historically by Serbs and Bulgarians.

The twentieth-century development of a Macedonian ethnicity, and its recent evolution into independent statehood following the collapse of the Yugoslav state in 1991, has followed a rocky road. In order to survive the vicissitudes of Balkan history and politics, the Macedonians, who have had no history, need one. They reside in a territory once part of a famous ancient kingdom, which has borne the Macedonian name as a region ever since and was called ''Macedonia'' for nearly half a century as part of Yugoslavia. And they speak a language now recognized by most linguists outside Bulgaria, Serbia, and Greece as a south Slavic language separate from Slovenian, Serbo-Croatian, and Bulgarian. Their own so-called Macedonian ethnicity had evolved for more than a century, and thus it seemed natural and appropriate for them to call the new nation "Macedonia" and to attempt to provide some cultural references to bolster ethnic survival.

It is difficult to know whether an independent Macedonian state would have come into existence had Tito not recognized and supported the development of Macedonian ethnicity as part of his ethnically organized Yugoslavia. He did this as a counter to Bulgaria, which for centuries had a historical claim on the area as far west as Lake Ohrid and the present border of Albania.

"Macedonia Redux", Eugene N. Borza, The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Frances B. Titchener and Richard F. Moorton, Jr., editors

http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/for...dux-borza.html

Wonder how much of a hero Borza really is to them now?

[Xiotis]

"Macedonia Redux", Eugene N. Borza, The Eye Expanded: Life and the Arts in Greco-Roman Antiquity, Frances B. Titchener and Richard F. Moorton, Jr., editors

http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/for...dux-borza.html

Wonder how much of a hero Borza really is to them now?

Excellent work BoD!!

[Amyntas]

usually when I quote what Borza says about the skops they tell me that they I shall stop posting "greek versions of borzas works" usually i posted a link to makdonaldsnews where i found this Macedonian Redux thing. But unfortunatly they deleted the topic

[The Blood of Dorus]

Originally Posted by Giourkas

usually when I quote what Borza says about the skops they tell me that they I shall stop posting "greek versions of borzas works" usually i posted a link to makdonaldsnews where i found this Macedonian Redux thing. But unfortunatly they deleted the topic

Yes they did delete it - I was actually trying to find it on their forum for another member here but they got rid of it plus a lot of other posts. Heres the link to the deleted post:

http://maknews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1181

I'm glad I at least copied it here before they got rid of it. I haven't been able to find Borza's article on-line. A link to the index of the book from which it is from is available on line here:


From memory I believe the Skop who started the thread on Borza's article in Maknews got it off an American University site of which he is a member of.

[Edit* Blood of Dorus, For some reasons i will explain you with pm, i had to delete your link.]

[Ptolemy]

Some more from Borza's work that are rarely used.

About Demosthenes:

Only recently have we begun to clarify these muddy waters by
revealing the Demosthenean corpus for what it is: oratory designed to sway public opinion and thereby to formulate public policy. That elusive creature, Truth, is everywhere subordinate to Rhetoric; Demosthenes' pronouncements are no more the true history of the period than are the public statements of politicians in any age.

[E.Borza, pages.5-6]

[Xiotis]

Originally Posted by Giourkas

usually when I quote what Borza says about the skops they tell me that they I shall stop posting "greek versions of borzas works" usually i posted a link to makdonaldsnews where i found this Macedonian Redux thing. But unfortunatly they deleted the topic

Of course they delete anything that does not fit their ridiculous agenda. They love quoting Borza's In the Shadow of Olympus. Quotes from that book are all over their propaganda sites! It is like their Bible. Now we know Borza doesnt really support their position since he states that the Macedonians eventually became Hellenized. Who will they turn to now? Their own pseudo academics? Like the ones that found 'Macedonian' on the rosetta stone??? This is truely laughable!

Anyhow there is this great website that searches bookstores all over the world for Books and lists them in order of price. Here is the book that contains Borza's 'Macedonian Redux' chapter. Its a compilation of different authors. On Amazon the book sells for 50.00 USD but here I found it for as low as 16USD...enjoy!!!

http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/Sear...Antiquity&x=61

[Ptolemy]

"...at this time the GAP between Greeks and Macedonians was by no means bridged. The work... toward bridging it, and the work of Alexander who was himself the result of that long PROCESS... was to take perhaps Another century to reach fruition. Perhaps it was not fully completed until both parties became CONSCIOUS of THEIR UNITY, As it had by then developed, in contrast to a connqueror from the barbarian West." [Rome]

Badian <p.43>

"... as Brunt rightly points out, an ethnic difference between Greeks and Macedonians was in Arrian's own day SO REMOTE as to be practically beyond understanding."

[E.Badian Footnote #72..SAME SOURCE)


and this is what Brunt says:

"The relics of the Macedonian language, such as the names of places and persons, both human and divine,...show THAT IT WAS BASICALLY GREEK with an admixture of (probably) Illlyrian. However, to Greeks in the FOURTH CENTURY it was evidently unintelligible. Macedonian differences institutions too, though they resembled those around the we find in the Homeric poems, were alien to the 4th century Greeks of Alexander's time, who were accustomed to city-states with democratic or democratic institutions. institutions. Hence they did not see that the Macedonians were of the same stock as themselves but at an earlier, indeed Homeric, stage of development. Eventually the whole people was thoroughly Hellenized and the Macedonian kingdoms in the near east which thoroughly arose out of the ruins of Alexander's empire Hellenized and were to diffuse Greek culture among their diffused GREEK Oriental subjects."

[Ptolemy]

Of course, any answer we might tentatively give must be one-sided at best. The average Macedonian (as distinct from the royal family and the highest nobility) has left us little evidence of what he thought -or indeed, whether he cared.

<E.Badian, Studies in History and Art, vol.10 (1982), p.34>

Moreover, the official decision by the Hellanodikai won wide recognition. We find it recorded in Herodotus, as proof of the Macedonian kings' Argive descent and Thucydides accepts the later as canonical.

<E.Badian, p.34>

[Ptolemy]

"This larger Macedon included lands from the crest of the Pindus
range to the plain of Philippi and the Nestos River. Its northern
border lay along a line formed by Pelagonia, the middle Axios valley
and the western Rhodopi massif. Its southern border was the Haliac-
mon basin, the Olympus range and the Aegean, with the Chalcidic
peninsula as peripheral...
We thus have a conception of Macedonia both more and less extensive
than Hammonds's -less in that IT REDUCES EMPHASIS ON THE north western LANDS that lie today WITHIN THE YUGOSLAV STATE, but more in that it takes into greater account the territory east of the Axios. It is a definition BASED on the political DEVELOPMENT of the MACEDONIAN STATE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME,..."

<E.N.Borza, "On the Shadows of Olympus" (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), pp.29-31 >